Prosecutor General`s Office blocks the prosecution of the persons involved in crime in the National Guard case

02.12.2020 00:00

In the evening of December 1, 2020, the Prosecutor General secretly changed the prosecutors in the criminal proceeding as of the fact of giving improper advantage for unreliable written opinion of a forensic expert in the case of the misappropriation of UAH 81 mln of the National Guard of Ukraine. The Prosecutor General acted in the absence of any legal grounds, contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine without both notifying the prosecutors and studying the materials of the criminal proceedings.

As a result, the NABU Detectives and the SAPO Prosecutors were unable to carry out the planned investigative and procedural actions in time, namely, to give notice of suspicion to the third probable participant in this crime — the ex-official of the “UkrBud” company (state-owned).

The National Bureau is convinced that this situation is a continuation of deliberate pressure on the investigation, as this is not the first time in the last six months that the Prosecutor General`s Office (PGO) has resorted to such actions.

On September 10, 2020, NABU and SAPO sent a draft notice of suspicion regarding the acting MP to the Prosecutor General.

However, the Prosecutor General, for unknown reasons, signed the suspicion on September 16, 2020, only. At the same time, there were no comments on the text of the suspicion or the evidence, and no changes were made to the document filed at first.

According to the investigation, the PGO twice groundlessly refused the National Bureau to send documents for the extradition of the beneficial owner of “VAB Bank” PJSC, suspected of embezzlement of 1.2 billion UAH of stabilization loan granted by the National Bank of Ukraine to the VAB Bank. In June and August 2020, NABU sent the same package of documents to the PGO, and in July and November of this year received it back with various reasons for refusals. All of these reasons have one thing in common: they are based on an arbitrary and biased assessment of the evidence, call into question the decisions of the High Anti-Corruption Court, and aim to obstruct the administration of justice.

In addition, while in the case of the misappropriation of UAH 81 mln of the National Guard of Ukraine, the Prosecutor General for unknown reasons and without warning changed the prosecutors, in the "Rotterdam +" formula case, the prosecutor is not changed.

And this is despite his repeated attempts to close the case and exclude a public trial of illegal actions of officials and representatives of the group of companies that are beneficiaries of the iiproper advantage. There is no answer to the question of why the prosecutor, who has proven his bias, and, accordingly, will not be able to ensure proper accusation in court, remains in office.

The National Bureau continues to work to bring to justice those involved in top-level corruption and to return stolen resources to the State.